Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member 1. While serving as Section Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, the applicant was promoted on ad hoc basis as Deputy Registrar, CAT, Ahmedabad Bench on 05.03.2009. His pay was fixed at Rs. 25780/- ignoring his request to fix his pay after drawing an increment in the pre-promotional post on 01.07.2009. He and his junior, Shri M.K. Balachandran, were drawing the same pay as Section Officer at Ernakulam. When Shri M.K. Balachandran was promoted as Deputy Registrar, CAT, Madras Bench, on 10.08.2009, his pay was fixed at Rs. 26560/-. Not having completed six months after promotion, the applicant missed an increment on 01.07.2009 and got his increment in the promotional post only on 01.07.2010. He was informed vide letter dated 04.11.2009 (Annexure A-6) that since he and his junior were ad hoc in the cadre of Deputy Registrar, stepping up of pay to the level of his junior was premature at that point of time. His representat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 46/2010 (H-II) ST dated 28.04.2010 insofar as the same related to the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the refund of credit relatable to insurance services used in relation to services which have been exported. 2. Heard the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR). None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. 3. Learned Deputy Commissioner reiterated the grounds of appeal. He fairly concedes that the department has taken a ground in the appeal that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. reported as 2009 (14) S.T.R. 316 has been appealed against by the department before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. He fairly submits that the Karnataka High Court has rejected their appeal as reported in 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.). 4. In the light of the above, the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of the Tribunal in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member 1. The applicants had applied for a single post of Mechanic Grade 'A' (Electrical) on the basis of Annexure A-1 notification dated 01.04.2011. As per check list at Annexure A-15, the name of the 1st applicant appears at Sl. No. 13 with 78.71 % of marks. The name of the 2nd applicant appears at Sl. No. 21 with 78.04 % of marks. Being toppers in the check list, the applicants were expecting selection. But as per Annexure A-16 select list dated 17.12.2011, the 7th respondent is selected and respondents No. 8 to 10 are wait listed. Aggrieved, they have filed this O.A for the following reliefs: (i) Call for the records leading to Annexures A-15 and A-16; (ii)Declare that selection and appointment as per Annexure A-16 select list is unsustainable in the eyes of law; (iii)Issue appropriate order or direction quashing Annexure A-16; (iv)Issue appropriate order or direction to respondents 1 to 4 to make fresh selection to the posts notified in Annexure A-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 426/2009 dated 20.10.2009 insofar as the same relates to sustaining penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. 2. None appears for the appellant in spite of notice. However written submissions dated 13.06.2012 stands filed which has been taken into account. Heard the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR). 3. The relevant facts in brief that the appellant, a provider of security services was found to have not paid proper service tax. On being pointed out, they have discharged the service tax liability along with interest. Original authority confirmed the service tax liability along with interest and appropriated the service tax paid and imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. On appeal by the party to the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty under Section 76 but confirmed the order of the original authority on other aspects. The appellant has file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 02/2010 (G) (D) ST dated 25.05.2010. 2. Heard the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR). None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. 3. Original authority confirmed a demand of service tax and imposed penalties under Sections 78 and 77 but refrained from imposing penalty under Section 76. The department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that once Section 78 penalty is imposed, there was no justification for imposing a separate penalty under Section 76 and rejected the appeal of the department. The department is in appeal against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) reiterates the grounds of appeal. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Deputy Commissioner and perused the records. I find that the original authority has confirmed the demand of service tax and imposed penalty under Section 78 but refrained fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
The applicant who was recruited to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was appointed as Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II on 12.5.1975 and posted to the Central Finger Print Bureau (CFPB), Calcutta in 1977 as Sub Inspector Finger Print. On 1.7.1986 the administrative control of CFPB was transferred from the CBI to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) on the specific condition that the terms and conditions attached to the posts in the CBI will be applicable to the applicant. When the pay scale of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP) of CBI was revised with effect from 1.1.1986 the NCRB did not implement the revised pay scale to Dy.SP [Finger Print] as per the given commitment. This disparity continued in the recommendations of the Vth and VIth Central Pay Commissions. The applicant had been representing for restoring the parity of pay with CBI. He was promoted is Dy.SP (FP) with effect from 7.12.2006 in the pay scale of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra (Oral) 1. This order will dispose of 17 appeals bearing nos. 86 to 102 of 2012. Counsel for the parties agree that these appeals arise from a common investigation and same set of facts and can be disposed of by a common order. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Appeal no. 86 of 2012. 2. The appeal has been filed against the order dated January 30, 2012 passed by the adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board), holding the appellant guilty of violating the provisions of section 12A (a), (b) and (c) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short the Act) and regulations 3 (a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1), 4(2)(e) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to securities market) Regulations, 2003, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lac. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, M/s. Platinum Corporation Ltd., originally incorp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 14.12.2009. 2. Heard the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR). None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent rendered the services of outdoor caterer during the period from 10/09/2004 to 21/07/2006. They were not registered for rendering the said services. During the course of verification of records, the liability to service tax came to notice. Original authority confirmed the service tax amounting to Rs. 1,94,100/- along with interest and imposed penalty under Section 78. However, he has recorded that the service provider was a small time operator and an illiterate and that he was not aware of the provisions of Service Tax Law and accordingly granted immunity from penalty under Section 76 by invoking provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). They paid the entire service tax am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The petitioner vide this petition has prayed that respondents be directed to grant him disability pension from 01.08.1995 to 25.08.2009. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army as a regular combatant on 04.05.1979. In August 1984, he was posted in Kupuwara Sector and assigned night duty on Balbir Post. During patrolling, the petitioner had fell down after slipping from the ice and became unconscious and one of the guard found the petitioner lying unconsciously and took him in the bunker. He was admitted in 92, Base Hospital for his medical treatment. Since he was not responded to the treatment, the petitioner was referred to Command Hospital, Udhampur and thereafter he was discharged from the Command Hospital with down category CEE (Temporary) for six months and was sent to Jabalpur Centre with remarks Not fit for Hills and Cold Area. After a period of two months the petitioner was called back to his unit and again after six months, the petitioner had undergone a check up ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Vide Stay Order No.527/12 dt. 26.6.12, waiver of predeposit was granted to the appellant. Against the said order, Revenue filed an application for modification of stay order on the ground that, the finding of this Tribunal in the stay order that the adjudicating Commissioner has not specified the provisions of Act which the appellant has contravened, is to be modified as the adjudicating Commissioner in paragraph 13 of his order has clearly mentioned that the appellant has contravened para-16 of CBEC Circular No.128/95-Cus. dt. 14.12.95. Therefore, there is a mistake committed by this Tribunal which is apparent on record. Therefore, the stay order be modified. 2. Heard the learned SDR and considered his submissions. 3. As per Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty can be imposed on any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or abets any such contravention or who fails to comply with any provision of this Act. But in the impugned order, the adjudicating Commissioner ...
Tag this Judgment!